Predictors of Relevant Changes in Pain and Function for Adolescents With Idiopathic Scoliosis Following Surgery.
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
18
12
2022
accepted:
23
04
2023
medline:
31
7
2023
pubmed:
5
5
2023
entrez:
5
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Retrospective analysis of longitudinal data. To evaluate clinically relevant change in surgical outcomes for Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS), comparing those who achieved smallest detectable change (SDC) in pain and function at 1-year post-surgery with those who did not, and to evaluate the influencing factors. The SDC is recommended to evaluate the surgical outcomes of AIS. However, little is known about the use of SDC in AIS and its influencing factors. This was a retrospective analysis of longitudinal data from patients who underwent surgical correction at a tertiary spinal centre from 2009 to 2019. Surgical outcomes were assessed at short-term (6 wk, 6 mo) and long-term (1- and 2-years) post-surgery using the Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22r). The difference between "successful" (≥SDC) and "unsuccessful" (<SDC) groups was assessed using an independent t-test. Univariate and logistic regression analyses enabled the assessment of influencing factors. All SRS-22r domains decreased in the short term, except for self-image and satisfaction. In the long term, self-image increased by 1.21 and function increased by 0.2, and pain decreased by 0.1. In all SRS-22r domains "successful" group had low pre-surgery scores and were statistically different to the "unsuccessful group". The difference remained statistically significant at 1-year for most SRS-22r domains. Being older and having low pre-surgery SRS-22r scores increased the chances of achieving SDC in function at 1-year. Achieving SDC in the pain domain was significantly associated with age, sex, length of hospital stay, and SRS-22r pre-surgery scores. Notably, the self-image domain showed the largest change compared to other SRS-22r domains. A low pre-surgery score increases the likelihood of clinical benefit from surgery. These findings demonstrate the utility of SDC for assessing the benefits and factors that may underpin surgical benefit in AIS.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Retrospective analysis of longitudinal data.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate clinically relevant change in surgical outcomes for Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS), comparing those who achieved smallest detectable change (SDC) in pain and function at 1-year post-surgery with those who did not, and to evaluate the influencing factors.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
The SDC is recommended to evaluate the surgical outcomes of AIS. However, little is known about the use of SDC in AIS and its influencing factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective analysis of longitudinal data from patients who underwent surgical correction at a tertiary spinal centre from 2009 to 2019. Surgical outcomes were assessed at short-term (6 wk, 6 mo) and long-term (1- and 2-years) post-surgery using the Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22r). The difference between "successful" (≥SDC) and "unsuccessful" (<SDC) groups was assessed using an independent t-test. Univariate and logistic regression analyses enabled the assessment of influencing factors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All SRS-22r domains decreased in the short term, except for self-image and satisfaction. In the long term, self-image increased by 1.21 and function increased by 0.2, and pain decreased by 0.1. In all SRS-22r domains "successful" group had low pre-surgery scores and were statistically different to the "unsuccessful group". The difference remained statistically significant at 1-year for most SRS-22r domains. Being older and having low pre-surgery SRS-22r scores increased the chances of achieving SDC in function at 1-year. Achieving SDC in the pain domain was significantly associated with age, sex, length of hospital stay, and SRS-22r pre-surgery scores.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Notably, the self-image domain showed the largest change compared to other SRS-22r domains. A low pre-surgery score increases the likelihood of clinical benefit from surgery. These findings demonstrate the utility of SDC for assessing the benefits and factors that may underpin surgical benefit in AIS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37146097
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004705
pii: 00007632-202308150-00007
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1166-1173Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Bettany‐Saltikov J, Weiss HR, Chockalingam N, et al. Surgical versus non‐surgical interventions in people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015.
von Heideken J, Iversen MD, Gerdhem P. Rapidly increasing incidence in scoliosis surgery over 14 years in a nationwide sample. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:286–292.
Vigneswaran HT, Grabel ZJ, Eberson CP, et al. Surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the United States from 1997 to 2012: an analysis of 20, 346 patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015;16:322–328.
Tsirikos AI, Roberts SB, Bhatti E. Incidence of spinal deformity surgery in a national health service from 2005 to 2018: an analysis of 2,205 children and adolescents. Bone Jt Open. 2020;1:19–28.
Lee AC, Feger MA, Singla A, et al. Effect of surgical approach on pulmonary function in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Spine. 2016;41:E1343–E1355.
Fernandes P, Do Brito JS, Flores I, et al. Impact of surgery on the quality of life of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Iowa Orthop J. 2019;39:66.
Helenius L, Diarbakerli E, Grauers A, et al. Back pain and quality of life after surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at 5-year follow-up: comparison with healthy controls and patients with untreated idiopathic scoliosis. JBJS. 2019;101:1460–1466.
Weiss H-R, Goodall D. Rate of complications in scoliosis surgery–a systematic review of the Pub Med literature. Scoliosis. 2008;3:1–18.
Bastrom TP, Marks MC, Yaszay B, et al. Prevalence of postoperative pain in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and the association with preoperative pain. Spine. 2013;38:1848–1852.
Rullander A-C, Isberg S, Karling M, et al. Adolescents’ experience with scoliosis surgery: a qualitative study. Pain Manag Nurs. 2013;14:50–59.
Wong G, Yuen V, Chow B, et al. Persistent pain in patients following scoliosis surgery. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1551–1556.
Aghdasi B, Bachmann KR, Clark D, et al. Patient-reported outcomes following surgical intervention for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:24–34.
Kakar RS, Simpson KJ, Das BM, et al. Review of physical activity benefits and potential considerations for individuals with surgical fusion of spine for scoliosis. Int J Exerc Sci. 2017;10:166.
Hughes J, Yaszay B, Bastrom TP, et al. Long-term Patient Perception Following Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis if Dissatisfied at 2-year Follow-up. Spine. 2021;46:507–511.
Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419–423.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
Spratt KF. Minimal clinically important difference based on clinical judgment and minimally detectable measurement difference: a rationale for the SF-36 Physical Function scale in the SPORT Intervertebral disc herniation cohort. Spine. 2009;34:1722.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–745.
Alamrani S, Rushton AB, Gardner A, et al. Physical Functioning in Adolescents With Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures and Their Measurement Properties. Spine. 2021.
Kelly MP, Lenke LG, Sponseller PD, et al. The minimum detectable measurement difference for the Scoliosis Research Society-22r in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison with the minimum clinically important difference. Spine J. 2019;19:1319–1323.
Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, et al. The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, And Pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2010;35:2079–2083.
Kelly MP, Kim HJ, Ames CP, et al. Minimum Detectable Measurement Difference for Health-Related Quality of Life Measures Varies With Age and Disability in Adult Spinal Deformity: Implications for Calculating Minimal Clinically Important Difference. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43:E790–e5.
Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, et al. Refinement of the SRS-22 Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire Function domain. Spine. 2006;31:593–597.
Glattes RC, Burton DC, Lai SM, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r patient questionnaire compared with the Child Health Questionnaire-CF87 patient questionnaire for adolescent spinal deformity. Spine. 2007;32:1778–1784.
Mens RH, Bisseling P, Kleuver Md, et al. Relevant impact of surgery on quality of life for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Jt Open. 2022;104-B:265–273.
Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Sucato DJ, et al. Improvement in Scoliosis Research Society-22R Pain Scores After Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43:127–132.
Bailey KM, Howard JJ, El-Hawary R, et al. Pain trajectories following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction: analysis of predictors and functional outcomes. JBJS Open Access. 2021;6:e20.
Rushton PR, Grevitt MP. What Is the Effect of Surgery on the Quality of Life of the Adolescent With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis?: A Review and Statistical Analysis of the Literature. Spine. 2013;38:786–794.
Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2003;28:63–69.
Emanuelson U, Egenvall A. The data–Sources and validation. Prev Vet Med. 2014;113:298–303.
Razali NM, Wah YB. Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of statistical modeling and analytics. 2011;2:21–33.
Howe CJ, Cole SR, Lau B, et al. Selection Bias Due to Loss to Follow Up in Cohort Studies. Epidemiology. 2016;27:91–97.
Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: the independent samples t-test. Restor Dent Endod. 2019;44:e26.
Shan G, Gerstenberger S. Fisher’s exact approach for post hoc analysis of a chi-squared test. PloS one. 2017;12:e0188709.
Adogwa O, Elsamadicy AA, Han JL, et al. Do measures of surgical effectiveness at 1 year after lumbar spine surgery accurately predict 2-year outcomes? J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25:689–696.
Sperandei S. Understanding logistic regression analysis. Biochem Med. 2014;24:12–18.
Madera M, Brady J, Deily S, et al. The role of physical therapy and rehabilitation after lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative disease: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26:694–704.
Fabricant PD, Admoni S-h, Green DW, et al. Return to athletic activity after posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: analysis of independent predictors. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32:259–265.
Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales : A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use ed. Oxford, UNITED KINGDOM: Oxford University Press, Incorporated; 2015.
Seki H, Ideno S, Ishihara T, et al. Postoperative pain management in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a narrative review. Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2018;13:17.
Fletcher D, Stamer UM, Pogatzki-Zahn E, et al. Chronic postsurgical pain in Europe: An observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32:725–734.
Carrasco MIB, Ruiz MCS. Perceived self-image in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an integrative review of the literature. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2014;48:748–757.
Sanders JO, Carreon LY, Sucato DJ, et al. Preoperative and perioperative factors effect on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgical outcomes. Spine. 2010;35:1867–1871.
Payne WK III, Ogilvie JW, Resnick MD, et al. Does Scoliosis Have a Psychological Impact and Does Gender Make a Difference? Spine. 1997;22:1380–1384.
Parent EC, Hill D, Moreau M, et al. Score distribution of the Scoliosis Quality of Life Index questionnaire in different subgroups of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1767–1777.
Bago J, Perez-Grueso FJ, Pellise F, et al. How do idiopathic scoliosis patients who improve after surgery differ from those who do not exceed a minimum detectable change? Eur Spine J. 2012;21:50–56.
Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–546.
Raad M, Neuman BJ, Jain A, et al. The use of patient-reported preoperative activity levels as a stratification tool for short-term and long-term outcomes in patients with adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;29:68–74.
Tarrant RC, O'Loughlin PF, Lynch S, et al. Timing and predictors of return to short-term functional activity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after posterior spinal fusion: a prospective study. Spine. 2014;39:1471–1478.
Sieberg CB, Simons LE, Edelstein MR, et al. Pain prevalence and trajectories following pediatric spinal fusion surgery. J Pain. 2013;14:1694–1702.
Andersen M, Andersen GR, Thomsen K, et al. Early weaning might reduce the psychological strain of Boston bracing: a study of 136 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at 3.5 years after termination of brace treatment. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2002;11:96–99.
Rodrigues LMR, Gotfryd AO, Machado AN, et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: surgical treatment and quality of life. Acta Ortop Bras. 2017;25:85–89.
Parent EC, Dang R, Hill D, et al. Score distribution of the scoliosis research society-22 questionnaire in subgroups of patients of all ages with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2010;35:568–577.
Basques BA, Bohl DD, Golinvaux NS, et al. Patient factors are associated with poor short-term outcomes after posterior fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:286–294.
White SF, Asher MA, Lai SM, et al. Patients' perceptions of overall function, pain, and appearance after primary posterior instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24:1693–1699; discussion 9-700.
van Kampen DA, Willems WJ, van Beers LW, et al. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg Res. 2013;8:40.
Cunningham G, Wright D, Nnadi C, et al. Patient Outcome Questionnaires in the British Spine Registry: Why are Response Rates Low and Which Patients Groups are responding. J Spine Neurosurg. 2020;9:1.
Jasani V, Baliga S, Ahmad S. Non-compliance for email responses on the British Spine Registry (BSR). Spine J. 2016;16:S80.
Wang K, Eftang CN, Jakobsen RB, et al. Review of response rates over time in registry-based studies using patient-reported outcome measures. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e030808.